opencoop_guide

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does signal that this is a safe informational read (it 'explains' rather than modifies). It stops short of saying the output is plain text with no side effects or that it need not be re-called mid-session, but for a zero-parameter orientation tool that is a minor gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence plus a front-loaded 'START HERE' marker; the urgency and the sequencing constraint come first, and there is no redundant or filler text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, the description supplies everything needed to decide to call it and how to sequence it. No return-value explanation is required since the purpose sentence already defines what the content covers.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema defines zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description correctly implies the call takes no arguments and needs no filtering context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete purpose — it explains the shared project and the behavior rules — which is clearly distinct from every sibling (all of which are file/lock/member operations). It does not use a classic verb+resource phrasing, but 'Explains ... behavior rules' tells an agent exactly what it gets back, so the intent is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit imperative with ordering and a boundary: 'call FIRST in every new conversation BEFORE any file work.' That effectively names both when to use it and when not to (not after file work has begun), leaving nothing for the agent to infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.